My new Sager NP8662 - Comments / Suggestions Before Purchase?

I should be ordering my NP8662 notebook PC sometime this week. Here is how I have it configured:

Screen: WSXGA+ glossy (1680x1050) - For 15" This is max res I'll consider, although would prefer matte.
CPU: P9700 2.8GHz 25W - prefer less power usage
GPU: GTX 260M 1024MB of course
RAM: 4GB DDR3
Optical: DVD+/-RW
HDD: 500GB 7200RPM - fast and large, the way I like it
OS: None - will install my own Windows 7 RTM
Warranty: Debating between standard XoticPC + SquareTrade with accidental or 2 year XoticPC with LCD accidental

Any comments or suggestions, some things I might need to consider? Thanks.

 

That is 100% the same setup as I will be ordering next month, let me know how it runs. ^^ (although I'm still debating over T9600 vs P9700 & 7200rpm vs 5400rpm HD ... which is more powerfull, but doesn't increase heat probs by to much ?)

 

I'm starting to consider going with the 5400RPM as well for reduced heat and power, although I don't believe the 7200's use much more power than the 5400's. For normal desktop work, I think 5400RPM is more than adequate. But I don't know how satisfied I'll be with gaming performance.

What warranty are you considering if any?

 

I would give the Q9000 more consideration. If you're not using all 4 cores, it won't come close to maximum TDP, so don't worry about that. Besides that, it's a dandy setup

Gen 2 Intel SSDs are amazing as well, with full TRIM support with Windows 7. You could get the 80GB for only a little more than the upgrade price on the 7200 RPM 500GB. Does anyone really need that much space?

 

I always thought that 5400 RPM drives would run cooler than 7200 RPM's until I actually got to testing a few out. I found that the 7200 RPM drives always ran cooler than the 5400 RPM ones. Others on this forum have also come to the same conclusions so bare that in mind.

The Q9000 should also be a consideration and I am just glad that I did not listen to all of the myths about lower performance otherwise I wouldn't have got that setup.

 

Regarding quad core, I'm still fuzzy on the whole performance thing. How does it offer better performance at a significantly lower clock speed? I mean, 99% of stuff I run isn't multithreaded, so it'd be running at 2.0GHz instead of the 2.8GHz of the dual core. I typically run very clean with little in the background. Old habits I guess.

I really don't care for an SSD. I need space! I plan to have probably up to a dozen games on it simultaneously at any given time, that consumes space really fast. If it had dual drive support, then I'd consider it. I will most likely get the 7200 RPM. I updated my Asus N10J from the 160GB 5400 RPM to a 320GB 7200 RPM and it definitely had a performance improvement, plus the specs showed it didn't consume any more or less power. The down side I found was the vibration from it. Granted, this is in a 10" netbook shell, so I wouldn't expect that from a much larger chassis.

I guess I'll have to check out a few more benchmarks before I pull the trigger.

 

In a few years time, that won't even be enough to hold a pagefile.

I went with the 320GB and after dual-booting and partitioning for linux and windows I'm already starting to regret it. More is better! Go with the 500GB 7200.4 (that, or if you want to get fancy, central storage)

 

Hey mate i have the same setup as the one your concidering, it does everything i want it to very well indeed, but before jumping on it, take a look in the games forum 'anothergeek' has a very informative topic started up with interesting game benches comparing quad and high clocked C2D cpus......it may give you the info you need to choose between the two, check it out here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=411615
Goodluck mate

 

Thanks. I've been looking and I think I'm going to opt for the dual core. One reason is for power consumption. The dual core is 25W, whereas the quad core is 45W. Also, I know things are changing, but I'm old school and as far as I'm concerned CPU clock is king.

I think the performance done by "anothergeek" is very good detailed information, but without the same numbers to compare against the 2.8GHz dual core it's hard to make a fair assessment. If I DO opt for the dual core, then I may do a similar assessment to compare with his. I think this would help any potential buyers make their choices as well.

Plus, the CPU is upgradeable, correct? Then that way I can update to a more powerful quad core later if needed.

 

If you do opt for the Dual Core, it would be interesting to compare some of the games I did in my Q9000 performance thread (in my sig) in Windows 7 Professional X64 with 4GB of RAM. If you still end up with the same specs as I have including a 500GB 7200.4 RPm HDD, oh and also the same Dox Optimised 185.85 driver.

The original benchs were done in XP SP3 so will have to do some again since I am never going back to XP again.....ever.

 

I plan on running same as you, except will be using Windows 7 RTM. If you do re-run, I plan on using the stock nVidia drivers, but will be happy to use alternate drivers for benchmarking purposes. I see it was you that did the runs, not "anothergeek". Not sure if there's more benches here on the Quad but I like your write up.

I expect to stick with Windows 7 as well. I have XP on my gaming desktop, but since I installed 7 RTM I haven't looked back. I'll probably keep that as my dual boot, but 7 is so streamlined compared with Vista, it's ridiculous. But that's for another discussion.

 

yeah ive also got the P9700 so i can also benchmark some games ive got afew now around thirty but im not sure how many have benchmark tools with them.

i find the 2.8ghz to be very powerful indeed,but ive not tried the quad of course, plan is to drop a QX9300 in a year or so

 

I won't have the full version of Windows until some time in October so we could compare a few games using Windows 7 X64 RC 7100. I have Dox Optimised 185.85 mostly because it gives me the best performance in GTA IV as well as great overall gaming performance.

I have noticed that in some games, you can get over 10 fps+ just from using better drivers.

For benchmarking when games don't have their own, I just use RivaTuners in game OSD and note the fps I see during game play on a variety of levels, environments and action. Once you have a large range of minimum and maximum fps, it is very easy to see how well the game performs.

Also some benchmarks are nowhere near a good indication of real time gameplay, the GTA IV benchmark is a good example of this with benchmark results being nowhere near what you would get in game.